‘Deep State’ Unmasked

By | 2018-02-12T12:39:37+00:00 February 12th, 2018|
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Former FBI Director Jim Comey’s leaks to the press, the bias in Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation, the Strzok-Page texts, anti-Trump “secret societies” within intelligence agencies, and the damning Nunes memo. Taken together, it’s tough to escape the conclusion that the “deep state” is real and it doesn’t like President Trump.

The president apparently poses enough a threat that an all-star lineup of senior intelligence agency directors, from John Brennan (CIA), Andrew McCabe (FBI), Jim Comey (FBI), James Clapper (DNI), and Michael Hayden (NSA and CIA), have all exploited intelligence assets and relationships in a concerted effort to undermine the Trump Administration.

Most of them certainly seem to be opposed to Trump and to enjoy being in the opposition. Consider Comey’s newfound status as a progressive darling in the “fight for justice.”

But who comprises the rank and file of the deep state, and why are they so opposed to Trump? Historian and columnist Paul Gottfried might have some answers, having lived among “them” in the Beltway bog, which he charmingly describes as “full of smug, striving liberals” in the 1980s. It seems little has changed since then, except that the number of smug strivers has increased along with housing prices in Northern Virginia and the tonier parts of Maryland.

“I work for our government,” was the introduction de rigueur of Gottfried’s furtive neighbors, spooky suits entrenched in and aligned with the deep state. “Those who uttered this were stiff and arrogant and almost always pronounced themselves for the ‘Left,’ or for whatever was fashionably leftist at the time,” Gottfried writes. Sure, there were Reaganites among them, excused as “amiable hypocrites” by Gottfried, for their purporting that they had embedded themselves with big government in order to shrink it.

“But their leftist counterparts,” writes Gottfried, “were far more unsettling.” They were “out of touch with most Americans but imagined they understood what was best for all of us.”

“Just as our Deplorables rightly suspect,” Gottfried continues, “these ‘public servants’ loathed gun owners, religious Christians, and the residents of fly-over country. Their fellow-citizen were there to be ‘regulated,’ and these experts hoped to make all economic transactions rational and humane.”

All this cosmopolitan preening from our off-the-books betters happened in spite of the fact that while they preached progressive precepts, they “racially and socially segregated themselves” from their neighbors. But that “did not prevent them from loudly lamenting the low-class white bigots, whom they intended to re-educate.” The nature of the deep state is a lot less esoteric when you understand who fills its ranks—Yalies like Anderson Cooper who stay on with the CIA after their summer internships.

“What I concluded from these encounters and from my sojourn in the Washington suburbs is that the deep state has true loyalists,” Gottfried writes.

They’re afraid Trump might mean business about “draining the swamp,” and they’re understandably irritated that he rules by executive order and through cabinet secretaries who are not in harmony with the permanent government. Because of their network of support, extending to the major media, leftist and neoconservative publicists, and major educational institutions, the deep state holds a very good hand.

Still, there are those unconvinced of an effort by a number of our three-letter agencies to undermine the president. In 1963, when FBI Chief William Sullivan wrote that the Bureau “must mark [Martin Luther King Jr.] now, if we have not done so before, as the most dangerous Negro of the future in this Nation from the standpoint of communism, the Negro and national security,” intelligence agencies then posed a threat to freedom. When the CIA wiretapped the phones of journalists and stalked their every move, intelligence agencies then posed a threat to democracy.

But when those agencies, which have remained consistent in their underhandedness for decades, target a president who stands incongruently with the progressive march of this country, the press and left-wing punditocracy exonerate them of past misdeeds, because they are alleged to be “subject to the rule of law and [are] democratically accountable.”

Compare The Atlantic’s newfangled fondness for intelligence agencies in, “What Happens When Intelligence Agencies Lose Faith in the President?” to their 2014 article, “How the FBI Tried to Block Martin Luther King’s Commencement Speech.”

The best example of this turnabout might be a July 2016 Atlantic article, “Since its inception, the [CIA] has wooed filmmakers, producers, and actors in order to present a rosy portrait of its operations to the American public.” You don’t say? “The [CIA] has established a very active spin machine in the heart of the entertainment capital, which works strenuously to make sure the cloak-and-dagger world is presented in heroic terms.”

It is axiomatic that the mission of these national security agencies is categorically imperative, and it is true that they are more often than not staffed with patriots doing good work and who desire to keep this nation safe, but it also evident that the leadership of national security agencies is capable of acting on behalf of their own vested interests rather than on behalf of those of the American people whom they are entrusted to steward.

President Eisenhower presciently warned against the union of martial assets and incumbent elites—both embedded and aligned within the deep state—that might someday wield unwarranted influence, wherein “[t]he potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.” Eisenhower feared that this coalition would entrench itself to influence domestic policy and social order, expanding its reach and power under the facade of the national interest. “Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry,” Eisenhower believed, could check the power and corruption of such a complex.

Put partisanship aside, when Americans prove incapable of policing their assets, they validate, reinforce, and expand the role of the deep state as the unqualified wardens of America. It is in the best interests of everyone to set straight the agencies we have entrusted to protect our communities.

About the Author:

Pedro Gonzalez
Pedro Gonzalez is a writer based in California.

16 Comments

  1. SaguaroJack49 February 12, 2018 at 1:39 pm

    The rogues need to go to prison. Brennan, Clapper, Comey, Mueller, McCabe, Rosenstein, Priestap, Strzop, inter alia. Their followers also need pay a heavy price for their betrayal of the public trust. Good intentions don’t matter. What actually took place is what matters, and only prison terms for such behavior will send the right message to others of the *cough cough* aristocracy.

  2. BCML February 12, 2018 at 3:05 pm

    Deep state. Doesn’t exist. A “boogie man” creation of the right wing lunatic fringe.

    • hamburgertoday2017 February 12, 2018 at 4:54 pm

      Hahahahaha. Call it whatever you want, but there is an over-reaching ‘administrative’ apparatus that recent evidence suggests seeks to operate with impunity. Some of its members have been caught and more still will be.

  3. Concerned Citizen February 12, 2018 at 3:07 pm

    FYI, it’s not hard to think (1) that agencies like the FBI, CIA, etc., need to be diligently monitored to prevent abuses that have all too often occurred over our history, and at the same time (2) their concerns regarding Trump and his associates are perfectly legitimate. Just because Justin Volpe abused Abner Louima and lied about it doesn’t make all arrests by the NYPD illegitimate.

    Also, I have to give credit to the propagandists who have turned James Comey (who torpedoed Hillary Clinton’s campaign) and Robert Mueller (appointed by the Trump Justice Department) into Hillary shills. There’s really no basis for that conclusion, just as there’s no basis for thinking that the FBI is a nest of liberals, but I guess that such arguments are easier when you’re not constrained by the facts but rather only by the limits of your ability to craft creative and imaginative fantasies.

    • hamburgertoday2017 February 12, 2018 at 4:52 pm

      I’m afraid you’re the one more likely to be engaged in ‘imaginative fantasies’.

      There is quite clearly evidence for supporting the notion that there were individuals within the DOJ/FBI who had ‘issues’ with Candidate, now President, Trump. Whether these individuals are ‘liberals’ is another matter.

      As for whether, [T]heir concerns regarding Trump and his associates are perfectly legitimate’. What would be the legitimate basis for those concerns that would entail a Title I FISA warrant?

      • Concerned Citizen February 12, 2018 at 7:45 pm

        You make a couple points. I’ll try to address them as best I can.
        1. Sure, some people in the FBI didn’t like Trump. Neither did many Republicans until he secured the nomination.
        2. I don’t know if you’re making this argument, but the idea that someone with political views can’t participate in an investigation is ridiculous. 98% of voters chose either Trump or Clinton, and you can’t disqualify all of them from doing an important job. The fact that Ken Starr was extremely conservative didn’t require his recusal in the investigation of Bill Clinton.
        3. Regarding the FISA warrant, of course I don’t know what was in the affidavit, but from what’s in the public record there appears to have been sufficient evidence that Carter Page (who was made the subject of the warrant after he was no longer with the campaign) was uncomfortably involved with the Russians. And the Trump DOJ recertified that warrant, so I don’t know why you would argue that there’s nothing there.
        4. Why not let the process play out? If the issues with the Trump campaign were limited to Page and Papadapoulos, then there’s a fair argument that Trump is as much the victim as anyone. But he insists on doing everything he can to undermine the investigation, and it’s reasonable to wonder why.

        • hamburgertoday2017 February 12, 2018 at 10:25 pm

          (1) The conspirators in this case let their feelings and attitudes lead them to subvert the law.
          (2) I’m not making that argument.
          (3) So far as we can know from the publicly available information, the initial FISA warrant to engage in FISA Title I surveillance on Carter Pages was based on the ‘Steele dossier’ with no other corroborating evidence.
          (4a) Whether the ‘process’ should be allowed to ‘play out’ depends upon which process you’re talking about. If the ‘process’ you’re referring to is the Special Counsel’s counter-intelligence investigation into ‘collusion’ between the Trump campaign and ‘the Russians’, that’s dead. The FISA warrant on Mr. Page was obtained using uncorroborated ‘testimony’ and required evidence regarding the reliability of the ‘testimony’ was omitted. The entire Russian collusion’ process was initiated on a false basis and all of the outcomes and evidence (or, more accurately, non-evidence) gathered cannot be used to pursue a criminal case against anyone, let alone President Trump. It’s now all ‘fruit of the poisonous tree’. If the ‘process’ you’re talking about is the various IG Horowitz’s and the House Select Committee’s investigations into wrong-doing in the DOJ/FBI, then, yes, that process needs to ‘play out’.
          (4b) The President has done nothing to undermine the Special Counsel’s investigation. Special Counsel Mueller is doing just fine on his own.

  4. teeter February 12, 2018 at 3:49 pm

    As far as I’m concerned, swamp draining should be President Trump’s top priority.
    As long as there’s an entrenched class of permanent government employees who hold the electorate in contempt, they can thwart any initiatives they don’t like.

    • tomatodon February 12, 2018 at 11:26 pm

      As far as I’m concerned, swamp draining should be President Trump’s top priority.
      As long as there’s an entrenched class of permanent government employees who hold the electorate in contempt, they can thwart any initiatives they don’t like.

  5. xavierh February 12, 2018 at 4:51 pm

    As far as I’m concerned, swamp draining should be President Trump’s top priority. As long as there’s an entrenched class of permanent government employees who hold the electorate in contempt, they can thwart any initiatives they don’t like.

    • Alvin February 13, 2018 at 4:01 pm

      Red pilled idiots circle jerking to fake news, and crying and stomping thier feet when relaity doesnt arrest anyone. These red pilled idiots never take a step back to think, maybe the information i’m consuming is garbage…

      • SaguaroJack49 February 14, 2018 at 8:37 am

        Oh. So you’re one of the brave ones who took the blue pill and now can’t get back to reality.

  6. hamburgertoday2017 February 12, 2018 at 4:55 pm

    Agreed.

  7. rel0627 February 13, 2018 at 6:53 am

    You cite ron johnson? WTF.

    • wmlady February 13, 2018 at 7:54 am

      Congratulations on at least reading the first paragraph of the article before exhibiting an utter lack of profundity.

      • rel0627 February 13, 2018 at 7:55 am

        Well citing ron johnson, who admitted to making shit up, puts you behind the 8 ball.

Comments are closed.